(03-18) 20:01 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco voters are in line to decide in June whether they should have the power to approve high-rise buildings along the waterfront after a judge Wednesday rejected an effort to strike the measure from the ballot.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Marla Miller didn't rule on the merits of the legal challenge, though, leaving open the option for a court to invalidate the initiative after the election. Opponents of the measure have said they may appeal if the judge ruled against them.

A trio of individuals, some with ties to developers, sued in February to get Proposition B removed from the ballot, saying the initiative intrudes on the state's jurisdiction over the shoreline and the Port Commission's authority to manage the waterfront.

Their legal challenge was underwritten in part by the San Francisco Giants, who are proposing a major development on their main parking lot with towers up to 380 feet high.

"It's obviously a disappointment for us, and I don't think it bodes well for the city," said Tim Colen, one of the Prop. B opponents who filed the lawsuit and the executive director of the Housing Action Coalition, a pro-growth advocacy group whose funders include real estate interests.

The initiative, sponsored by the Sierra Club's San Francisco chapter and other supporters of limited growth, would require voter approval for any new development on Port of San Francisco property that would exceed existing limits.

In court filings, the named opponents - Colen, building trades official Michael Theriault, and Mission Bay neighborhood activist Corinne Woods - had argued that the measure seeks to regulate "state lands that are held in trust for all the people of the state, not just San Franciscans" and the state had "expressly prohibited those lands from being subject to local initiatives."

Prop. B's supporters contend that's a "smokescreen," pointing to 18 different ballot measures impacting port management that San Francisco voters have decided since the state turned over management of bayfront property to the port under the Burton Act in 1968.

Miller, in a seven-page ruling, said the issue involved "the complex interplay" between the state Legislature, San Francisco residents, and the city's legislative and administrative entities.

She noted the "numerous other initiatives and referenda that have been proposed in prior elections to control uses of San Francisco waterfront lands," and found that Prop. B's opponents "have not clearly established that the challenge is meritorious such that it justifies the 'dramatic step' of withholding the measure from voters."

Rather, it was appropriate for the case to have a "full, unhurried briefing," legal arguments and deliberation after the election.

Jon Golinger, one of the Prop. B campaign co-chairs, called the ruling "a fantastic victory for the right of voters to protect the waterfront."

"Now the people get to exercise that right ... to keep waterfront height limits intact and prevent San Francisco's waterfront from becoming a giant wall of skyscrapers like Miami Beach," Golinger said.